Mark
Anthony DeLuna, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended
complaint (DE # 5) alleging he contracted scabies while he
was a pre-trial detainee at the Lake County Jail in September
2017. He also alleges he was denied medical treatment until
early November 2017. “A document filed pro se
is to be liberally construed, and a pro se
complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court
must review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it
if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
“In order to state a claim under [42 U.S.C.] §
1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1) that defendants deprived
him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the
defendants acted under color of state law.” Savory
v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006).

DeLuna
alleges Sheriff Oscar Martinez, Jr., Former Sheriff John
Buncich, Former Assistant Deputy Gore, and Assistant Deputy
Warden Nearly are (or were) supervisors who should have
insured their employees decontaminated inmates at the jail.
However, “Section 1983 does not establish a system of
vicarious responsibility” and “public employees
are responsible for their own misdeeds but not for anyone
else's.” Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592,
593 (7th Cir. 2009). DeLuna alleges he wrote letters to
Former Sheriff John Buncich and Former Assistant Deputy Gore
about his scabies. He also alleges he filed a grievance which
was answered by Sergeant Phyliss Leto. However, “[o]nly
persons who cause or participate in the [Constitutional]
violations are responsible. Ruling against a prisoner on an
administrative complaint does not cause or contribute to the
violation.” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d. 605,
609 (7th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted); see
also Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir.
2011). As the Seventh Circuit has explained:

Bureaucracies divide tasks; no prisoner is entitled to insist
that one employee do another's job. The division of labor
is important not only to bureaucratic organization but also
to efficient performance of tasks; people who stay within
their roles can get more work done, more effectively, and
cannot be hit with damages under §1983 for not being
ombudsmen. [The] view that everyone who knows about a
prisoner's problem must pay damages implies that [a
prisoner] could write letters to the Governor of Wisconsin
and 999 other public officials, demand that every one of
those 1, 000 officials drop everything he or she is doing in
order to investigate a single prisoner's claims, and then
collect damages from all 1, 000 recipients if the
letter-writing campaign does not lead to better medical care.
That can't be right. The Governor, and for that matter
the Superintendent of Prisons and the Warden of each prison,
is entitled to [d]elegate to the prison's medical staff
the provision of good medical care.

DeLuna's
allegations against Officer Mattingly are not as detailed as
they might be, but giving him the benefit of the inferences
to which he is entitled at the pleading stage of this
proceeding, he has plausibly alleged that Officer Mattingly
was personally responsible for decontaminating inmates
entering the Lake County Jail in September 2017 and issuing
them clean clothing. He alleges Officer Mattingly was
deliberately indifferent to the spread of communicable
diseases and was the proximate cause of his getting scabies.
This states a claim for violating his Fourteenth Amendment
rights.

Finally,
DeLuna alleges Nurse Practitioner Kathy denied him medical
treatment for scabies on October 28, 2017, when she examined
him and told him to shower with soap. “For a medical
professional to be liable for deliberate indifference to an
inmate's medical needs, he must make a decision that
represents such a substantial departure from accepted
professional judgment, practice, or standards, as to
demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base
the decision on such a judgment.” Jackson v.
Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 697 (7th Cir. 2008) (quotation
marks and citations omitted). Here, DeLuna has stated a
plausible claim that Nurse Practitioner Kathy was
deliberately indifferent to his scabies in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment.

For
these reasons, the court:

(1) GRANTS Mark Anthony DeLuna leave to
proceed against Officer Mattingly in his individual capacity
for compensatory damages for proximately causing him to get
scabies by not decontaminating inmates entering the Lake
County Jail in September 2017 in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment;

(2) GRANTS Mark Anthony DeLuna leave to
proceed against Nurse Practitioner Kathy in her individual
capacity for compensatory damages for being deliberately
indifferent to his need for medical treatment of scabies on
October 28, 2017, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment;

(5) DIRECTS the clerk and the United States
Marshals Service to issue and serve process on Officer
Mattingly and Nurse Practitioner Kathy at the Lake County
Jail with a copy of this order and the amended complaint (ECF
5) as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and

(6) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(g)(2), that Officer Mattingly and Nurse Practitioner
Kathy respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for
which the plaintiff ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.